Re: Copyright Law

[Jamo]

Hey guys I have a question about copyright boundries regarding artwork specifically sculpture. I was wondering if you produce an original piece and you own the copyright are other people open to making any commercial gain on that piece at all. for example selling photos of it?

[GaryR52]

The answer is yes, they are. If a photographer photographs your sculpture, you still own the rights to the sculpture, but the photograph is his intellectual property and has all the same protections your sculpture does. This falls under the heading of "derivative works," which are perfectly legal. If, on the other hand, someone were to make duplicate casts of your sculpture and attempt to sell them without your authorization, then that would be a clear violation of your copyright. Similarly, if you were to take the photographer's photo of your sculpture and reproduce it without his permission, you'd be violating his copyright, even though your sculpture is the subject of the photo. It is the expression of any original work that is protected, not the underlying idea. I could shoot a bookful of pictures of Henry Moore's sculptures and sell the book as my own because the book and the photos are my own creations, not Moore's. If I slipped one of John Hedgecoe's photos of Moore's work in with my own without his permission, he could sue my pants off. The key point here is that a photograph of your sculpture, whether authorized by you or not, is the photographer's intellectual property. His rights extend only to the photo, though, and do not include any rights to your sculpture, just as your rights cover only your sculpture and do not extend to include the photographic record of it made by someone else. If you shoot a photo of your own sculpture, you own the rights to both the sculpture and the photo. It's all about who the original author is.

Gary

[Jamo]

So where do small maquettes and models of the sculpture fall made by someone else in the same likeness of the sculpture? I would think that taking a photo of a coca cola logo and calling it an "artistic derivative" would be the same as taking a picture of a sculpture and calling it an aritstic derivative.
This is starting to get into a grey area.

[GaryR52]

What if a guy takes a photo of your sculpture and then makes a clay model of his own identical to yours in the photo- using the photo only no molds etc, bet the lawyers would have a real head scratcher there.

Well, in that case, you'd probably have a case for a suit, especially if the resemblance is substantial. It used to be the case, years ago, that you could "difference" your work (i.e., make a minor change), if you were copying someone else's work, and that was sufficient to get around the law. However, at some point during the eighties, some new cases set a new precedent and ever since even a vague resemblance to someone else's work is actionable. Your only defense would be to prove you had never seen the other artist's work before doing yours.


What if you take a photo of something that everyone else does, like the Eiffel tower from the same exact location on the sidewalk someone else does, you now have independent identical photos.

That's a little harder to make a case for, but I've heard of suits that were filed for just such reasons and a few were successfully litigated. If there's a substantial enough difference, though, like yours is a night photo and his is a day shot, or you used a different focal length of lens or color instead of B&W, etc., there usually is no chance of a lawsuit. If you happen to identically duplicate all the same conditions, though, then you've got potential trouble.



I can say that the copyright office is SLOW as molassis, I sent paperwork and money in last year before Christmas- November some time, and I'm STILL waiting for the certificate. I wrote to inquire and they said 2 months ago it would be another 2-3 weeks...

Actually, you don't even need to have proof of registration, unless you're sued. The law says the creator of any intellectual property has an automatic copyright at the moment of creation. As soon as the work is fixed in a tangible medium of some sort (words on paper, a sculpture in any medium, a photo, etc.), all rights to it reside with its creator. Of course, if there is any chance you could ever go to court over it, you should register the work, but you can do that at any time after its creation. Until then, you could, at least in theory, bring an infringement suit, but you'd have a tougher time proving authorship without the registration.

Gary

[Araich]

Actually I think that there is copyright protection over an image of your work being used for commercial purposes (ie a book). A license has to be issued by you for it's reproduction. This is an automatic right as creator, unless you make the work under contract to a buyer where it specifies otherwise.

This right also persists for a period after your death.

The photographer does own the photograph and rights over it, but not extending to reproduction of your artwork unlicensed. A common exception to this is the reproduction for criticism or education.

[GaryR52]

Wow! What a pain in the butt that must have been. But, you know, if you have registered, not having the certificate yet is no problem, as, I believe, you should be issued some sort of number or other temporary proof of registration, right? If nothing else, you can contact the copyright bureau and get a letter to that effect.

I'm not sure what the law may state in Australia, but here, I'm fairly certain a photographer can use a photo of your work for his own purposes without a violation occurring. Still, if a photographer is going to do so, it would be wise for him to cover his butt and get your permission first. Then, at least you have some say in how he's portraying your work to the public. If the photography is really bad or makes your work look bad, then you could have a legitimate objection to his use of the photo, otherwise, the photo itself is his property. An example of this would be the case of an exhibition which is photographed by a local news photographer. If your work is in the exhibition, it is regarded as part of a public event and is fair game. The newspaper or magazine can publish the photo and say anything about it they want to in print. Of course, if you're libeled, you could sue for libel, but not for copyright infringement.

I know that John Hedgecoe not only had Moore's permission to do photo essays of his work, but Hedgecoe and Moore were close friends for many years. I don't know if such a relationship has always existed between any other photographers of Moore's work, though and whether or not they had to obtain his permission for a book project. It's possible, given the stature of Moore in the art world, during his lifetime. This would be a topic worth researching.

Well, the reproduction of your artwork is not what's happening if a photographer publishes a photo of your sculpture. Your sculpture is your expression, the photograph is his expression. So, if a photographer of your work publishes his photos, he isn't reproducing your work, he's reproducing his own work. There is no violation in this. There is one possible area in which you might have a leg to stand on and that is that the owner of any private property may legally object to it being photographed and sue in the event the photo is published without permission. This is a common problem professional photographers face whenever shooting a location in which someone's place of business or residence is in the photo and, in many cases, property owners have successfully sued photographers who didn't get permission first. This also extends to using someone's likeness without first obtaining a model release, though celebrities and others who are "in the limelight" are exemptions from this. It's possible this could also be applied to an artist's work. However, if you've given permission, you've given the photographer unlimited license to use the image and he can use it in any way he wants to, unless certain uses are stipulated or implied in writing in the release.

Gary

[JamesDFarrow]

"Well, in that case, you'd probably have a case for a suit, especially if the resemblance is substantial. It used to be the case, years ago, that you could "difference" your work (i.e., make a minor change), if you were copying someone else's work, and that was sufficient to get around the law. However, at some point during the eighties, some new cases set a new precedent and ever since even a vague resemblance to someone else's work is actionable. Your only defense would be to prove you had never seen the other artist's work before doing yours."

This could really be a "Pandora's Box". Abstract sculpture aside, what if you sculpt an "Apple". If you are a half decent sculpture, it will look like an apple. Someone else sculpts an apple. It looks like an apple. And since apples all pretty well look the same, it looks like your apple too. So did they copy your apple and infringe on your copyright? O.K. this might be a bit of a lame example but I think you get my point. There are many "life" subjects that, if done well, have no choice but to look like someone else's well done sculpture of the same "life" subject. Figures (torsos) done in the classic style would be another example.

James :)

[GaryR52]

It is and has been a real problem. I think that, even in such cases where there is a very fine distinction between one work and another, it's been difficult for either side to establish their case convincingly, thus, it's not as common in actual practice.

In the case of two works which both depict a common object, if you were to sue, for example, in the apple illustration you've mentioned, the issue might come up as to whether or not you had both rendered an image of the same apple or not. That could be the deciding difference right there. Let's say you were both in the same life drawing class and you each drew the apple from the same viewpoint. Now, let's say one of you later sells the drawing. There might be a case for infringement if it can be established that you both drew the exact same apple from the same viewpoint, however, the two drawings would have to be substantially alike. If you do yours in a totally different style than his, there really is no case, as your expression of the same subject is sufficiently different. However, if he published his work and you do a drawing that uses his work as the subject, even a stylistic difference might not be sufficient defense if it's obvious it's the same scene. This whole area of copyright is very tricky and when they threw out the "difference" clause a couple of decades ago, they left the door open to all kinds of abuses, in my opinion.

By the way, in case you're wondering, no, I've never studied law, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. ;) Seriously, as a creator of many types of intellectual property over the years, I've always been interested in copyright law and have tried to stay abreast of what the laws are, if for no other reason than to cover my own ass. I once wrote a history of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, for example, while in the employ of the tribe. It was written as a part of an historical renovation project. Therefore, my work, as diligent and painstaking as it was, belonged to my employer, not to me, as it was legally considered "work for hire." Had I attempted to publish it under my own name, the Choctaw Nation could have sued me.

Gary

[oddist]

About copying photos...read this about Koons (http://www.ncac.org/artlaw/sum-rog.html) and be sure to consult an Art Lawyer.

[GaryR52]

Good for you, Randall! I believe the original pieces you salvaged would have been in the public domain, due to the their original use, as well their age. Since they were probably designed by the architect and sculpted and cast by long dead artisans on a "work for hire" basis, unless there is the remote chance the architect's heirs want to sue, you're safe in using them. Your alterations to the original, as well as any additions you made would constitute a derivative work, so I think you're fine.

Thanks for the article link, Oddist. Clearly, copying a photo without permission is a copyright infringement. We were discussing going the other way, though; i.e., whether you could sue a photographer for benefitting monetarily from a photo of your sculpture. My opinion is that, in certain cases, you might have a case against the photographer if he photographed your work without permission. As I said above, the exception to this would be the case in which your work is on public display, in which case permission may not be required, especially if the photo is used as part of a newspaper or magazine article about the exhibition. That use would be within the public domain. It would also be free promotion and nothing to bitch about. ;)

Gary

[Jamo]

My concern was not about about mass consumtion of the photo of a sculpture but a photo of the sculpture used for monetary gain. Of course I don't think any artist could reasonably be upset if their sculpture is in Time magazine with accreditation and they aren't getting paid for it. Or familly photos of the piece while you are walking in the park enjoying the piece. Even displaying it in other public domains. What I would have issue over is if someone were to take a picture of the sculpture paste the sculptors name on the picture and sell the photo of the sculpture at any shop. What about if a photo were used with the sculpture's image and it was used to market another product for example a car wax and this was the central photo on the product and no authorization was given. I think this is taking artistic intellectual propoerty and selling it as if you had rights to it.

[GaryR52]

Right, Jamo. As I said above: "We were discussing going the other way, though; i.e., whether you could sue a photographer for benefitting monetarily from a photo of your sculpture." As I said, though, your rights don't extend to the photograph unless you're the photographer. As I also said, you could complain that the photo was taken without your authorization, but only if it was photographed in your own studio or your home. If it was on display in a gallery or an exhibition, then anyone could photograph it. If I were writing an article on the exhibition, I could include photos of some of the artists' work, including yours, and I wouldn't be violating anyone's copyrights by doing so, even if I sold the article and the photos for publication. Of course, most galleries probably wouldn't let a photographer shoot photos of the artworks, but a public exhibition outdoors probably wouldn't be policed as well. Most museums don't allow unauthorized photography, either. Maybe if you gave us some hint as to what the case is, specifically, you'd get a more appropriate answer. Or was this a hypothetical question?

But, hypotheical or not, the key point is that a photographer's creation is just as protected as your sculpture is. Even though your work is the subject of the photo, the photo is still the intellectual property of the photographer and he is free to use it as he sees fit.

The exception to this is that, due to the nature of the photographic medium (it records whatever is there, including identifiable persons or property), a photographer can be held liable for the content of his photos. In other words, you had the right to object to your work being photographed and if you had protested, the photographer would have had no right to photograph your sculpture. If you were present at the time and didn't say anything, you've given your tacit consent to the photographer. If you weren't there, but would have refused him had you been present, then you could bring action against the photographer for the unauthorized photographing of your work. You could even block his publication of the photos on the grounds that you didn't approve of him photographing your sculpture. Normally, a professional photographer makes sure to get a signed release from the owners of any property he photographs, either before the image is made or after, and preferably before. If he failed to do so, he leaves himself open to a lawsuit.

However, the lawsuit is not related in any way to your copyright or his; it is over a privacy issue. This stems from the fact that a published photo of someone or someone's property could result in their public humiliation, embarrassment, or worse. Though there is no law (yet) that says you can't take photos of anything you want to (if there were, paparazzi would be out of business overnight), the law does provide some protection for the public by allowing anyone (with the exception of celebrities) to have legal control over the use of any images made of them or their property. However, this is as far as your legal rights extend.

If a photographer was hired by you to shoot photos of your sculpture, then he was working for you when he did so and the rights to his photos belong to you. This is called the "work for hire" clause. If this is what has happened in your case, then, yes, you do have the right to sue the photographer for violating your copyrights because the images were made expressly for your use, not his, and you paid for those photos, as well as the right to all uses of them, unless your written contract with the photographer states otherwise. It is not uncommon for a photographer's contract to allow him the right to use the image for the promotion of his business and, in some contracts, a photographer may reserve the right to resell the images. If there is any such language in your contract (assuming you had one), that would be legally binding and you wouldn't have any recourse.

Gary

[Jamo]

well It was a hypothetical situation that i'm thinking of about a sculpture recently installed. It is nothing that is happening but I was trying to think ahead if it were to happen. I think there is a high probability that a public sculpture that the city had commissioned me to do will have photographs for sale by a third party other than the city or myself. I'm wondering what kind of rights to that image there would be. As i'm following I do not have any right to the photographs because it is the work of the photographer eventhough the subject matter is my sculpture. Privacy laws do not apply because it is in the public domain. It seems unfair to me because it sounds like it is skiriting around the issue using an artistic excuse. I think the essence of the work is captured and being copied eventhough it is change in the medium. If it were a sculpted copy of the piece done by someone else who had no prior agreement with the sculptor then would there be legal recourse? Is a drawing of a drawing protected under copyright? I think you can't bail out on the excuse that a photograph is art and is the artistic expression of the photographer. I think by that reasoning you could take photographs of the Da Vinci Code publish it as a book of photographs of a book and call it artistic expression because it is a photograph eventhough the entire content of the book is captured and you could read page for page as plain pictures focused in on the pages of the book's content. You could sell your book at a cheaper price and now you are competing because it is the same content. Who would buy the more expensive book by the actual author? Something is clearly being violated eventhough the text is the content of the photograph and the photograph is the photographers. Is it the fact that there is a medium change that it is protected by artistic expression? Or if it were a sculpture of a sculpture attempting to copy the original sculpture would that be a violation? I don't know the answer but I am thinking when dealing with a sculpture of a sculpture or a drawing of a drawing the first drawing is property of the originator and the second drawing is an artistic derivative and is the property of the second artist only if there is artistic expression exercised. I think whatever medium it is if there is no artistic expression no change or original thought placed into the work it is a copy and violates the copyright holder. Where do forgeries of famous paintings fall? They are indistinguishable from the orignal only by experts but are still a work of someone else. In my opinion you can't take a plain picture of a sculpture and sell it as your own. However if you were to take a picture of the sculpture yet throw into your own artistic expression then it would be the photographer who holds the rights. Or do a sculpture of a sculpture yet put your "artistic expression" into it then you would be the copyright holder. I think the essence of the copyright is if there has been artistic expression exercised and not the fact that the medium has changed. All of my arguments are also assuming that the artist is still alive and hasn't been dedad for fifty years when their art falls into publice domain. I believe France has a specific law dealing with over casting of bronze artwork.
Anyways I hope this doesn't come off as an angry rant I just love debating and don't mind arguing over even the most ridiculous points. :)

[JamesDFarrow]

I think once it is in the public domain anyone can take pictures of it and publish them. Like postcards for example. I can't see the people who do them paying anyone any royalties. Unless I am mistaken.

I also think that a lot of time people are in the wrong but there is no point is suing them as it would cost more than what it is worth.

I also build models and have see a lot of people do kits of unlicensed subjects and sell them right on-line. If Paramount or Universal or Disney for example, want to, they do chase them and get their lawyers to send them C & Ds (Cease & Desists) letters. The people do stop selling the stuff (they don't really care as they have made some money up till then anyway) and go on to do another unlicensed subject. And so it goes on and on. If the big corporations did take them to court what are they going to get - less than the cost of time and aggrevation it takes to take the culprits to court in the first place. You could spend the rest of your life in court.

Anyway, one way to beat the person that might take pictures and sell them is to beat them to the punch and do it first.

James :)

[GaryR52]

well It was a hypothetical situation that i'm thinking of about a sculpture recently installed. It is nothing that is happening but I was trying to think ahead if it were to happen. I think there is a high probability that a public sculpture that the city had commissioned me to do will have photographs for sale by a third party other than the city or myself. I'm wondering what kind of rights to that image there would be. As i'm following I do not have any right to the photographs because it is the work of the photographer eventhough the subject matter is my sculpture. Privacy laws do not apply because it is in the public domain. It seems unfair to me because it sounds like it is skiriting around the issue using an artistic excuse. I think the essence of the work is captured and being copied eventhough it is change in the medium. If it were a sculpted copy of the piece done by someone else who had no prior agreement with the sculptor then would there be legal recourse? Is a drawing of a drawing protected under copyright? I think you can't bail out on the excuse that a photograph is art and is the artistic expression of the photographer. I think by that reasoning you could take photographs of the Da Vinci Code publish it as a book of photographs of a book and call it artistic expression because it is a photograph eventhough the entire content of the book is captured and you could read page for page as plain pictures focused in on the pages of the book's content. You could sell your book at a cheaper price and now you are competing because it is the same content. Who would buy the more expensive book by the actual author? Something is clearly being violated eventhough the text is the content of the photograph and the photograph is the photographers. Is it the fact that there is a medium change that it is protected by artistic expression? Or if it were a sculpture of a sculpture attempting to copy the original sculpture would that be a violation? I don't know the answer but I am thinking when dealing with a sculpture of a sculpture or a drawing of a drawing the first drawing is property of the originator and the second drawing is an artistic derivative and is the property of the second artist only if there is artistic expression exercised. I think whatever medium it is if there is no artistic expression no change or original thought placed into the work it is a copy and violates the copyright holder. Where do forgeries of famous paintings fall? They are indistinguishable from the orignal only by experts but are still a work of someone else. In my opinion you can't take a plain picture of a sculpture and sell it as your own. However if you were to take a picture of the sculpture yet throw into your own artistic expression then it would be the photographer who holds the rights. Or do a sculpture of a sculpture yet put your "artistic expression" into it then you would be the copyright holder. I think the essence of the copyright is if there has been artistic expression exercised and not the fact that the medium has changed. All of my arguments are also assuming that the artist is still alive and hasn't been dedad for fifty years when their art falls into publice domain. I believe France has a specific law dealing with over casting of bronze artwork.
Anyways I hope this doesn't come off as an angry rant I just love debating and don't mind arguing over even the most ridiculous points. :)

I see. Well, you're following me just fine, so far. I think the key to understanding this lies in understanding that a photograph of your sculpture is not your creation unless you're the photographer as well as the sculptor. If it's someone else's photo, then that photo is their intellectual property, not yours.

As for someone making a duplicate cast of your sculpture, like I said in my initial reponse to this thread, yes, that would definitely be a violation of your copyright. But, what I'm afraid you're trying to do is somehow equate that with someone's photographing your sculpture, which is not at all the same thing. Yes, it is a different medium, as well as someone else's creation, and that is why you have no recourse. The only way you have any say about it is in the aforementioned situation in which you've commissioned a photographer to take pictures of your sculpture. Then you would own the rights to the photos. But, since that's not the case here, you would have no recourse in the event someone else seeks to photograph your sculpture for profit. Because it will be in the public domain, as you admit, you really have no recourse at all. But then, why should you? What you are saying is analogous to me taking pictures at a Rolling Stones concert and then selling my pictures, but Mick Jagger thinks he's somehow entitled to a cut of my earnings just because he's in the pictures. Maybe not an exact analogy, but my point is you don't have any claim to someone else's creative output any more than they have a claim to yours.

Another area you seem to be confused about is the difference between what you've created; i.e., the sculpture, and photographs of the sculpture. Someone else's images of your work are not your work and shouldn't be confused with your work. It's like saying that someone stole your car because he took a photograph of your car. The one artistic expression is separate and apart from the other. This reminds me of the superstitious idea some primitive peoples have that, if you photograph them, you're stealing their soul. No one is taking anything away from you at all. Besides, this being a public sculpture, you won't realize any additional income from it, except perhaps by selling small reproductions of it, if that is allowed by the city. There is a huge difference between your sculpture and an image of your sculpture. If I wanted to, I could go sit in front of your installed sculpture and draw sketches of it, then sell my sketches. I don't have to share my income from those sketches with you because they are my sketches. The fact that your sculpture is the subject is immaterial. I could just as well draw anything else in the area and the drawings would also be mine. Like I said before, the copyright law allows for derivative works in other media and that's exactly what a photo or a drawing of your sculpture, made by someone else, is.

The example of the Da Vinci Code book would not be covered as a derivative work because the author and publisher are protected against copies made by any means. The utility of a book is in its reading and if the images are legible, then they are a clear infringement. The same is not true of a photo of a sculpture. Because a sculpture is a three dimensional object, it can only be duplicated by means of three dimensional reproduction, i.e., casting copies of it. A two dimensional image on paper does not constitute a copy of a sculpture. It is a photograph, not a sculpture. Not only that, but a photograph only shows one view of the sculpture. It cannot equal the experience of walking around a sculpture, or picking it up and turning it around in one's hands. The utility of a sculpture lies in being able to perceive it's three-dimensionality first hand. That experience cannot be duplicated in a photograph, therefore, the photo is recognized as a completely different medium of expression and it is apparent that it is not the embodiment of the sculpture.

James, the photographer can realize income from his photos in several ways. As I mentoned earlier, he could do a book on Jamo's sculpture, accompanied by text written about Jamo's work. He could sell the photo to a local newspaper, to be used as an illustration for an article about the installation of Jamo's sculpture. In the example of a book, he'd receive royalty income, in the example of the newspaper article, he'd recieve a one-time flat fee. Then there is the stock photo market, which is one of the most lucrative markets for photographers. He could place the images with a stock photo agency and receive lifetime royalties (theoretically) every time his picture is published. It could be used as an example of modern art (assuming that's Jamo's style), or it could wind up as an element in an ad, etc. You'd be amazed at how many times and in how many ways some of the most mundane stock images are used.

But, the main thing to understand, of course, is that this is income that belongs rightly to the person who created the photographic image, not the artist who created the sculpture that is the subject of the image. If this were not so, architects would be suing advertising agencies, stock photo agencies and photographers all the time for using images of their buildings. No artworks would ever appear in print or on TV or in movies, for fear that the income from those sources would have to be shared with the artist who created the original artwork. An image, in another medium, is covered by international copyright law as a derivative work. End of debate.

Gary

[Jamo]

I had another question reagrding when it is needed to give an artist credit for a work. Does this need to be done when a photograph is taken? Is a photograph of a print infringement on the artist? I don't know. But as I'm following the current argument the answer seems to be no. Because a photograph and a print are different. At which point there is no situation in mass media where an artist is entitled credit for their work because photographs are intellectual property of the photographer and they can sign their own name to the image because it is a derivative work. Unless there is some other part of copyright law that I am unaware of. There have also been situations where people have bought limited edition print runs from artists taken them, scanned them, reprinted and sold them without permission from the artist. I'm not totally sure about copyright law on this but I think this is perfectly legal if I'm not mistaken. Eventhough it may be legal I don't think it is right. Morality and law are different.
I would like to attack this one comment however.
"That experience cannot be duplicated in a photograph, therefore, the photo is recognized as a completely different medium of expression and it is apparent that it is not the embodiment of the sculpture."
Sculpture can be duplicated in photographs. As you are well aware molds are not nececssary to reproduce sculpture. Although photographs are not tactile experiences A sculpture's essence can be stored in a photograph. What is a three dimensional CAD scan? If you want to get strict about the definition of a photograph it is derived from the greek word "photo" meaning light and "graph" to write. Three dimensional computer scans use light and they do write to computer hardisks recording the photographic data. If you were to take enough photos of a sculpture you could reproduce it in its three dimensionality. I don't think its fair to say you can't capture what a sculpture is in photography. Maybe you can't in one photograph. My point is a sculpture's essence is stored in photography I was never saying that a photograph is a sculpture nor do I equate a sculpture as having the same
experience as a photograph. The utility of a sculpture is also its idea not
only the tactile experience of walking around it and feeling it with your hands. You can look at sculpture too. Imagine a blind person experiencing a sculpture all they have is their tactile experince, smell, hearing & taste too if you really want to try it. A sculpture is composed too its isn't only wrought in a pure 3 dimensional physical sense. why do artists submit sketches in competitions?To explain what they are going to sculpt. The foundation of sculpture is in drawing. Its Idea is intellectual property. Its like Marcel Duchamps urinal. Do the manufacturer's have legal recourse for the urinal design. It was the pattern maker who designed the stupid thing in the first place. Its the idea of it being sculpture.
I also don't disagree with the fact that you can take a picture of a sculpture and that be seperate art as well. Photographs are ideas expressed through the medium as well. But photographs can lack expression and be copies as well. There are two parts to sculpture its composition and its execution. Foundries take models and turn them into bronze sculptures. Is the foundry the composer? No. Sculptors compose symphonies in stone, bronze plastic wood or whatever. The idea originates with the artist. It is intellectual property and has content just like the Da Vinci Code. Photographs communicate compositional ideas. Photographs of sculptures are seperate in legal eyes but you can't argue the fact that they don't have anything to do with the sculpture's compositional content. Also Mick Jagger makes music he doesn't look good in photographs.

[GaryR52]

Good questions. In the case of 2D art, things get trickier, where photography is concerned and this is partly because a photographed painting or print can easily be duplicated (as opposed to a sculpture, which cannot be duplicated by photographic means). It is customary, though not legally required, to caption a photo of an artist's work with some form of credit line. It is also standard practice to give a photographer credit for the published photo, though, again, this isn't a legal requirement.

But, merely photographing a print is not an infringement because, again, a photograph is a different medium. However, as I was saying, since it's an easy route from photograph to another print, it's a good idea to get permissions, if you're a photographer, and to insist upon them if you're the artist. But, most photographers of artwork are reputable professionals who know all this and who adhere to the standard practices. If you have hired a photographer to shoot photos of your art, whether 2D or 3D, you own the copyrights to the photos, unless otherwise stipulated in writing. It's not uncommon for a photographer to reserve the right to make use of the photos for self-promotion and most contracts will stipulate this. It is highly unlikely that any photographer is going to be photographing an artist's print or painting without the artist's knowledge or consent, also. Most museums and galleries won't allow photography on their premises unless it's a pro who has been hired either by them or the artist. On the other hand, if someone buys a print and photographs it in their own home, that's another matter, even though it isn't so much the act of photographing the work that is questionable as it is the intended use of the photograph. The law allows one to make reproductions for one's own personal use, but there are some restrictions applied and these vary with the medium. Obviously, duplicating a sculpture you've purchased from an artist is not allowable. Photographing it certainly is allowable, though.

Of course, all of this is not to suggest that artists haven't attempted to sue photographers for unauthorized photography of their works. There may even be some cases in which the artist has won. Ever since they threw out the old clause about a work not being an infringement if it was made somehow different from the original, there has been this gray area of interpretation that has made for some very interesting legal decisions. Forinstance, there is now a law in California and a few other states, since about the mid-eighties, which gives the artist control over the display and care of his work even after he has sold it. There have been successful suits brought against art buyers who altered an artist's work after buying it. The rationale was that the artist has a right to protect the way in which his work is displayed because his reputation as an artist depends on it. This runs counter to the basic precepts of private property rights, however, and there has been much resistance to it by buyers who feel they have a right to do what they please with what they paid for.

The copyright laws have nothing whatever to do with concerns of morality, per se. They are there to protect the property rights of creative people. To my mind, that, in itself, is moral.

I thought I had made it clear enough that your argument that, somehow, something of yours has been taken from you when your work is photographed is simply wrong. Sculpture is a three dimensional medium. It is not duplicable in a two dimensional medium. Sculptures don't have an "essence" or "soul, either. They are inanimate objects. A photograph of a sculpture is not in any way a duplicate of the sculpture itself. I don't see how you can insist otherwise. To do so suggests you don't know the difference between an object and a picture of the object. It would be virtually impossible for a photographer to make a three dimensional copy of your sculpture using a photograph, or even a series of photographs. Even assuming the photographer has the skills and talents of a sculptor in addition to his photographic skills, and assuming he has taken photos of the sculpture from every angle, it would still be difficult for him to recreate your work without a great deal of time and effort and the question is, why would any photographer do so?

Digital scanning uses a laser, but it does not use visible light in the same way photography does. In any case, a photograph is not a digital scan, nor is a digital scan a photograph. A photograph consists of light-sensitive particles and dyes (if color) suspended in a gelatin emulsion on a paper substrate. A digital scan consists of binary data stored on an magnetic disk. There is absoluetly no similarity between these two media and the only way a photograph can be stored digitally is if the photograph is either scanned or a digital camera is used, to begin with. Even then, a digital 2D image is still not a duplicate of a sculpture, even if the pixels that make up the screen image forms an image of one view of a sculpture. Even if you used digital video and rotated the camera around the sculpture, or shot a series of stills and used them to make a digital animation showing the sculpture revolving, it still isn't a duplicate of a sculpture. If you have the software and the skills and are able to somehow make a digital 3D model of the sculpture from a 2D image or images, then you're on your way to a duplicate of a sculpture, but you're still not there yet. If you take that 3D virtual model, save it as an STL file and send the file to a rapid prototyping machine, such as a Thermojet wax printer, then you've got a duplicate of the sculpture because, only at that point do you have a three-dimensional object. But, why would you go to all that trouble when you could simply scan the sculpture itself and send the resulting digital model to the wax printer? Of course, this process has nothing whatever to do with photography, so we are way beyond our hypothetical argument, here.

Glad you mentioned Duchamp and we can also throw in Jeff Koons, while we're at it. Neither was guilty of copyright infringement as neither actually created anything. Duchamp merely displayed an existing urinal, while Koons merely displayed an existing vacuum cleaner. That does not, in itself, constitute a duplication of anything. If it did, there would be two urinals and two vacuum cleaners, the originals and their copies. But, such was not the case. Each artist was only playing provocateur by suggesting that (1) anything can be art and (2) any object, placed in another context, can be art. I could do the same thing and so could you. I can place my computer on a pedestal and call it anything I want to and that doesn't violate the creator's copyright at all. If either Duchamp or Koons claimed they made the urinal or the vacuum cleaner, this is still not a violation of copyright, as nothing has been duplicated. It's simply an untrue claim and though either could be taken to court over it, it's nonsense to believe that American Standard or Hoover would waste the time and money to do so.

Yes, photographs can certainly "lack expression," depending upon the intended use of the medium. It can be used to merely record a scene as it actually is, or it can be used as an art medium, or any mix of the two. So what? This has nothing whatever to do with your sculpture or your copyrights to your sculpture, or the photographer's copyrights. Copyrights are simply intellectual property rights, nothing more. They protect all creative works equally, whether they are utilitarian or fine art. Naturally, if a photographer is photographing your sculpture, he can either shoot it as it appears, merely documenting it in its setting, or he can, like John Hedgecoe did with Henry Moore's sculptures, impart his own creative vision by the use of lighting, lenses and composition. But, again, this has nothing to do with copyrights. Whether a photograph is a straight record of your sculpture or an artistic statement about it, it is still the photographer's property, not yours.

Gary

[JamesDFarrow]

I have a question. What if someone takes a photograph of your (displayed in public) sculpture and then uses that photograph (as a Logo, or Banner, or even a Cover of a book, etc...) to, let's say, enhance the product (sell the book, or for a web site that sells sculpting supplies, or books on sculpture, or maybe something not even related to sculpture). Isn't this using your sculpture, and not the actual photograph, for commercial gain? I am sure I read somewhere that using it this way is concidered as a "value added" (I believe that's the term) use of the "subject in the photograph" and not the actual photograph. So in reality, the medium (photo, drawing, painting, graphic, etc...) is not at issue. The "sculpture" is being used, without permission, for commercial purposes. Yes? No?

James :)

[Jamo]

I don't know the answer. I would think that it is not allowed. But it is again a photograph which is an artistic expression in itself seperate from a sculpture.
A photograph cannot be exerpienced the same way as a sculpture so in essence what Gary is saying it is not an infringement on the sculpture.
I want to go back to this for a second
Glad you mentioned Duchamp and we can also throw in Jeff Koons, while we're at it. Neither was guilty of copyright infringement as neither actually created anything. Duchamp merely displayed an existing urinal, while Koons merely displayed an existing vacuum cleaner. That does not, in itself, constitute a duplication of anything. If it did, there would be two urinals and two vacuum cleaners, the originals and their copies. But, such was not the case. Each artist was only playing provocateur by suggesting that (1) anything can be art and (2) any object, placed in another context, can be art. I could do the same thing and so could you. I can place my computer on a pedestal and call it anything I want to and that doesn't violate the creator's copyright at all. If either Duchamp or Koons claimed they made the urinal or the vacuum cleaner, this is still not a violation of copyright, as nothing has been duplicated. It's simply an untrue claim and though either could be taken to court over it, it's nonsense to believe that American Standard or Hoover would waste the time and money to do so.
By this reasoning it sounds like you are opening the door to this situation. Someone taking a painting done by someone else exhibiting it in a bathroom and being able to call it their own because it is the context in which it is displayed. They may not have copied anything or reproduced the painting but they are claiming that it is their own work. Which I would think is a clear violation of copyright. There is something more to be exploreer here. Another thing I wanted to raise was this. If Marcel Duchamp is creating original art then what exactly is it he holds the copyrights to? There is intellectual property there and there is an original artistic expression. He definetly does not hold the right to reproduce casts of his sculpture because that lies in the company who desinged the urinal. What is that he can protect agains infringement?

[ironman]

I'd sue the bastards if they used a photo of my sculpture without my permission!
I've had people want to take photos of my work as a way for them to make "their art".
One was a pro photographer, I chased him away. He didn't even ask for permission but just started shooting.
The other was a college student taking a photo class, she asked for permission and promised me copies of the photos. I allowed her to photograph, but I never received the copies.
I'll never allow anyone under those type of circumstances to take photos of my work again.
It leaves a bad taste in my mouth, the thought that people want to use your art to make their art.
Of course, if I don't know about it, it's okay, but I better not see it in print because I'll track you down and make you pay!
Have a nice day,
Jeff

[GaryR52]

I have a question. What if someone takes a photograph of your (displayed in public) sculpture and then uses that photograph (as a Logo, or Banner, or even a Cover of a book, etc...) to, let's say, enhance the product (sell the book, or for a web site that sells sculpting supplies, or books on sculpture, or maybe something not even related to sculpture). Isn't this using your sculpture, and not the actual photograph, for commercial gain? I am sure I read somewhere that using it this way is concidered as a "value added" (I believe that's the term) use of the "subject in the photograph" and not the actual photograph. So in reality, the medium (photo, drawing, painting, graphic, etc...) is not at issue. The "sculpture" is being used, without permission, for commercial purposes. Yes? No?

James :)

Now, that would probably constitute a violation. It's one thing to use a photo of a sculpture as an illustration of the artist's work in a book about the artist, or to use the image as an example of a particular style of art in a book about that style of art or about sculpture, but the use of the same image as part of a logo would be an infringement, as far as I know. Again, I'm not a copyright attorney...but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. ;)

But, no, it's not "the sculpture" that is being used, quite clearly it is an image of the sculpture. But, regardless, if the image is used without permission and is used for any purposes other than reporting on the artist and his work, I'd call it a violation and sue the photographer.

Gary

[GaryR52]

I'd sue the bastards if they used a photo of my sculpture without my permission!
I've had people want to take photos of my work as a way for them to make "their art".
One was a pro photographer, I chased him away. He didn't even ask for permission but just started shooting.
The other was a college student taking a photo class, she asked for permission and promised me copies of the photos. I allowed her to photograph, but I never received the copies.
I'll never allow anyone under those type of circumstances to take photos of my work again.
It leaves a bad taste in my mouth, the thought that people want to use your art to make their art.
Of course, if I don't know about it, it's okay, but I better not see it in print because I'll track you down and make you pay!
Have a nice day,
Jeff


Sounds like you handled it well, Jeff. The bottom line is, if you don't want your work photographed, that's your decision to make and if you say no and they do it anyway, you have grounds to sue, especially if they misuse the images. I have no problem with that. The problem with Jamo's line of thinking, though, is that he seems to believe he's either entitled to the photographer's income from the (hypothetical) images, or he believes no one ever has a right to photograph his work under any circumstances and this is simply not correct. A public sculpture is in the public domain and can be photographed at will by anyone at any time. The photographer can do as he pleases with the images, short of saying publicly, "this is a photo of my sculpture," and the artist can't do a thing about it. The photographer can realize income from the images because the images are his property and he is not compelled by law to share that income with anyone. In any other case, though, the rule is different. If a photographer comes into your studio and starts snapping away without asking, you can sue. If a photographer asks your permission to shoot photos in your studio and then uses the images for some purpose not agreed to by you, you can sue. But, works in the public domain are entirely unprotected by copyright law.

Gary

[oddist]

This might be able to be settled by contacting http://www.photolaw.net/index.html.

They also have a good Q & A section.

The last question "I make collages. Are there any problems that I might encounter?" has an interesting answer...

[GaryR52]

Thanks, Oddist. That question about collage wouldn't apply to Jamo's hypothetical question about a public sculpture for two reasons: (1) the sculpture itself is in the public domain and (2) a photograph of the sculpture, taken by the person doing the collage, belongs, not to the sculptor, but to the person who made the photo; i.e., the person doing the collage. If the photo is another photographer's work, or is culled from a magazine or other copyrighted work, then there may be a violation. The Q&A page is clearly about the use of images and whether or not those images are someone else's work. This has nothing to do with the subject matter of the images, however.

Gary

[oddist]

Ok, then what about "this?" (http://www.boingboing.net/2005/02/06/chicagos_public_scul.html)

The writer of this article may not like the idea but an artist has rights!

And so, I update this post and add here the copyright law (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106)...which I intend to read for my own edification.

[Jamo]

No you have me totally misunderstood. I think I did a poor job of explaining my point. I never said that I thought a photographer had no rights to photgraphing the image under any circumstances. what I meant was in a purely commercial fasion for commercial gain. Using it as a promotional tool or in conjuntion with a product. Or purely selling the image.
this was my original question.
Hey guys I have a question about copyright boundries regarding artwork specifically sculpture. I was wondering if you produce an original piece and you own the copyright are other people open to making any commercial gain on that piece at all. for example selling photos of it?
Of course I believe it can be photographed to the end of time by anyone who choses to do so. and they can take their pictures and hang them on their wall and they can show those pictures in a public setting, Newspapers books magazines it is fair game. But what i'm saying is when they take the image itself and try to sell that for commercial gain seperate from any public discourse. I guess the point that i'm trying to make is what james was saying
I have a question. What if someone takes a photograph of your (displayed in public) sculpture and then uses that photograph (as a Logo, or Banner, or even a Cover of a book, etc...) to, let's say, enhance the product (sell the book, or for a web site that sells sculpting supplies, or books on sculpture, or maybe something not even related to sculpture). Isn't this using your sculpture, and not the actual photograph, for commercial gain? I am sure I read somewhere that using it this way is concidered as a "value added" (I believe that's the term) use of the "subject in the photograph" and not the actual photograph. So in reality, the medium (photo, drawing, painting, graphic, etc...) is not at issue. The "sculpture" is being used, without permission, for commercial purposes. Yes? No?

[GaryR52]

Well, Oddist, first of all, let me clarify that I am in no way saying artists don't have any rights. I am saying artists have no rights to the work of other artists. Every artist has the rights to his own work and he may control, to an extent, what happens to his work. However, no one has the right to determine what someone else can do with his own creations.

Having said that, Jamo, I reiterate, you have no say in what a photographer does with any image he has made, even if the subject of the image is your sculpture. The only way you have any say about it is the case in which you've commissioned the photographer to shoot pictures of your sculpture. Then, and only then do you have the right to tell the photographer he may not sell the images. The only exception to this would be when he has photographed your sculpture without your authorization, but, even then, your right to tell him what he may or may not do with his own creation are limited. Now, don't make me repeat myself yet again, okay? ;)

Oddist, I tend to agree with the idea the author is presenting, but not with his tone or manner of presentation. He is right to challenge Anish Kapoor's restrictions on photography, as the work is clearly in the public domain. As such, it is perfectly legal, by all internationally recognized copyright laws, for anyone to photograph it for any purpose. Mr. Kapoor is simply wrong in thinking he has any right to tell people they can't do so and I'm very surprised that the city of Chicago isn't aware of this. Are there no copyright attorneys in Chicago? I'd like to see Kapoor try to sue someone for photographing this piece. The resulting circus would be quite entertaining. By the way, your statement, "The writer of this article may not like the idea but an artist has rights!" shows that, like Jamo, you don't understand that the copyright laws protect all means of expression, including photography. While Kapoor's sculpture would no doubt be photographed by many professionals (and the published images would advertise Kapoor's work for free, enhancing his reputation), the vast majority of photos would be snapped by tourists visiting Chicago; i.e., people who have no intention of publishing their pictures. In any case, none of you, Kapoor included, understands that a public sculpture is not protected by copyright law. You also don't seem to grasp that, as an artist, you have the freedom to not do public sculptures if you don't like giving up all rights to your work. No one held a gun to Kapoor's head and made him do a monumental piece for the city of Chicago, you know. I'm not telling you artists have no rights, I'm just telling you what rights artists do have and I'm only reiterating what is contained in the international copyright laws. If you don't like the law, petition the U.S. Copyright Office to change it.

NYC, I wondered the same thing, myself. I think there is a tendency to look beyond one's own area for a sculptor (or an architect, for that matter, which is common in that field) because of the "exotic" aspect perceived about someone from another place. I wondered about this, years ago, when a new mall opened here and the large non-objective sculpture in front of it was commissioned from a Chicago artist. Then again, had they got an Oklahoma artist (other than me), it would have probably wound up having a cowboy on a horse in front of it, instead. ;)

Gary

[Araich]

Gary, with all respect, I believe that you are wrong.

Your use of the phrase 'public domain' is incorrect. Public domain refers to creations which have never had copyright (pre-date the laws) or have ceased to have copyright (authors rights have expired). As far as I know, the placement of an artwork in the 'public' has no bearing on a works copyright status.

A photographer can equally take an image of your work on your frontyard (private property) or on the back of your truck (public property) - it makes no difference to either the photographer or the artist's copyrights.

The real issue is 'fair use'. If the image is part of a photographers portfolio then he has rights to reproduce it in that context. If he instead wanted to use it to sell toothpaste or even sell a book about sculpture - then he must seek your permission.

[Jamo]

I think this pertains to what we are discussing
A. Copyright protects original works of authorship that are fixed in tangible form. This includes photographs, literary works including non-fiction and fiction, letters, music as well as accompanying lyrics, sound recordings, pictorial, graphic and sculptural works, motion pictures, audiovisual works, computer software, and architectural works. Even such ordinary things such as simple letters, catalog descriptions and doodles are protected by copyright. The only essential condition that the law requires is that the work is original.

For example, if a photographer were to make an exact copy of the Mona Lisa, the resulting image would not be protected by copyright because an exact copy does not constitute an original work. However, if the same photographer were to photograph several people standing in front of the Mona Lisa, that picture could be copyrighted because there is some element of originality in the image. The law does not require much originality, but there has to be some. Also, only those parts of a work that are original can be copyrighted. Therefore, the copyright would not extend to any part of the Mona Lisa that might appear in the photograph.

No one can acquire rights to works that are not their own or that are no longer protected by copyright. However, if an artist interprets a public domain artwork such as the Mona Lisa by painting it in a style completely different from Leonardoís, the derivative work -- that is, the work derived from the original -- may have enough originality to be protected by copyright.
This means a photograph of a painting without any original elements added is not protected under copyright. This would also mean the corollary if it is not original then it is a copy,if it is a copy it is infringing on the orignal work.
This also means that a photo of a sculpture without any original elements added is also an infringement. I think Gary is getting confused with the fact that a photograph can be orignal and it can be lacking originality. Of course photos of artwork with original content are protected but not photos of artwork without any new original content added. A shot of a sculpture without any original content added would be a clear cut infringement of copyright. This being said I am excluding what is reffered to as "fair use". Newspapers,magazines, educational institutions where it is perfectly fine to photograph the work. I would also like to clarify the use of the term, public domain. when I use that I mean in the public arena and able to be seen by the public for display. The legal term public domain would mean that I have signed away my rights to the work. Just as Mzarts work is in the public domain because he has been dead for quite some time now. I talked to a lawyer about this he was very clear.

[GaryR52]

Gary, with all respect, I believe that you are wrong.

Your use of the phrase 'public domain' is incorrect. Public domain refers to creations which have never had copyright (pre-date the laws) or have ceased to have copyright (authors rights have expired). As far as I know, the placement of an artwork in the 'public' has no bearing on a works copyright status.

A photographer can equally take an image of your work on your frontyard (private property) or on the back of your truck (public property) - it makes no difference to either the photographer or the artist's copyrights.

The real issue is 'fair use'. If the image is part of a photographers portfolio then he has rights to reproduce it in that context. If he instead wanted to use it to sell toothpaste or even sell a book about sculpture - then he must seek your permission.

Okay, Jamo, Araich, given that I cannot find anything on the U.S. Copyright Office website (http://www.copyright.gov/) that says anything about public domain and public works, one way or the other, I will concede I may be wrong about the status of a work which is considered "public" art. If this is, indeed, the case, then Kapoor's work would be legally covered, especially if he registered it with the copyright office. Nevertheless, I still believe he's being foolish in prohibiting all photography of his sculpture, as it only serves to keep his work out of the broader public's eye. It will never be viewed by anyone who doesn't come to Chicago. But, I guess that's his prerogative.

Yes, if I'm wrong about the public domain issue, then "fair use" would govern the use of any photos of your hypothetical public sculpture and you would have the legal right to do as Kapoor has done and keep the world from seeing your work by any other means except physically travelling to its location. Why any artist would want that is beyond me, since most of us want more people to be aware of our work, not fewer. Even if my sculpture wound up in an ad for perfume or underwear, I'd run with it and enjoy the added exposure. This "well, if everyone isn't going to play by my rules, I'm taking my ball and going home" attitude is just stupid, in my opinion.

P.S.: I've just emailed the Copyright Office about this, so we should get an answer, from the people who would know best, soon.

Gary

[Araich]

Gary I also agree that prohibiting photographic reproduction would be foolish from a career perspective. I have had some experience in the area of image licensing and can suggest a much greater value to those copyright protections.

The value to us is not really in stopping reproduction but in controlling it's nature. For instance copyright laws requires that you be credited as the maker - now it's hard to argue against the value of this. If you agree to the use of your artwork commercially then you can control a few important things, such as requiring the artwork be shown in full (half an image is common and effectively destroys your artwork), or that it remain unaltered (recolouring and digital effects are also now common in magazines).

From my perspective, a sunset clause is also important. We may love the idea of $1000 for a toothpaste ad now, but after you're in the Tate and MoMA you might feel differently.

Bear in mind that when you sell a sculpture, you retain copyright, unless you assign those rights specifically. You have continued legal and moral rights over that artwork. Of course in the real world it can be hard to exercise these in some circumstances.

Also commissioning can potentially alter or destroy these rights.

In all of this the photographer (or his employer) still owns the actual photo and copyright over it's use, but the use is controlled (to an extent) by your rights as the creator.

And rightfully so.

[GaryR52]

Right. Well, I certainly wasn't arguing against an artist receiving proper credit for his work.

The "moral rights" issue is one that is still not universally accepted. I don't know about Australia, but, in the U.S., the concept has only been codified by a few states, so far. Here is what I found on the subject at the U.S. Copyright Office's site: http://www.copyright.gov/reports/exsum.html. Note, particularly, the fourth paragraph.

P.S.: In the United States, where we have a long standing tradition of private property, the "moral rights" concept runs fundamentally counter to the concept of private property, hence it's unpopularity here. It seems to imply that one who buys an artwork doesn't really own his copy of that artwork, or the original, if it is an original one-off piece. It suggests that the owner of the piece is reduced to being a licensee, not an owner. It is also an unpopular idea because it purports to tell the owner where and how he may display his own property. Americans are used to the idea that, if they paid for an object - any object - it is theirs to do with as they please. The idea that an artist can exercise legal control over how and where they display it is analogous to Mitsubishi telling me I can't make alterations to my car without their permission, or any other manufacturer telling me I can't use what I've bought from them in any way I choose. The idea is unpopular here because our concept of human rights is that no "right" may infringe upon another right. This is why we're in a current uproar over the use of "immanent domain" by private developers who seek to destroy people's homes for their own private business interests. It is a case of one party claiming their rights are superior to the rights of homeowners to own property. One thing I'd add, as a libertarian, is that the true test of ownership lies in one's ability to control or dispose of one's property as one sees fit. If you don't have that control, in what sense do you really have ownership? Sure, it's only right that an artist have control over the reproduction of his works, even after they are sold. But, I believe it crosses the line to then tell the buyer what he can or can't do with what he's paid good money for. I predict that if the concept of moral rights becomes universal, we'll see a dramatic decline in the sales of artworks, as no buyer wants the artist telling him how and where he may display the artwork. Frankly, as an artist, myself, I don't give a rat's ass how or where the buyer displays my work, as long as he doesn't make unauthorized copies of it. Other than that, I don't see where I have any right to tell the buyers of my art what they can or can't do with it once they've bought it. I certainly wouldn't buy art if I knew in advance that I was going to be subjected to such totalitarian control over my ownership of it.

Gary

[realsculpt]

i will be honest, i did not read all of this, but i beleive from reading a book on copyright for artist, it IS illeagle for a photographer to sell photos of someone elses work unless they are working for the newspapers (fair use law). There are alot of great books in the Art section of the books stores on contracts and copyright for artist. the one book talked of a case in shich a sculptor did a sculpture based on a photo, or vice versa and got sued and lost because of copyright. It was a photo and sculpture aof a guy on a bench with wiener dogs (i know strange, but cool looking)

look at it this way, if you take a photo of someone holding a can of Coke, if they are in the background and the can of coke is not 100% recognizable or not the focus of any thing just in the background you are ok, but if you photo a can of coke in the foreground as the focus you are in violation. notice on tv shows they blur teeshirt logos, you will see that on shows like "real world" or "cops"

In movies they have to block out the letters on products, because without permission you cant show the words COke on the cans label without permission.

now if there is your sculpture is on someones property and then photographed the owner of the property may have a claim , maybe you i dont know.

anyway check out some of the books out there, Oh also if you photo your work and put it on a website, or even print out the photo you may own rights to the 2-D image as well, not sure.

oh, most states offer very cheap legal advice, for about 50$ or less, call the local bar association and see if they offer legal conultations from the local Bar association, I have gotten a 1/2 hour for 50$ in FL this way, and in Philly it used to be free.

[GaryR52]

Well, since this thread has risen from the dead, I just want to say something about Randall's last post, which I somehow missed until now (sorry about that, Randall).

I noted that one of the six rights an artist has when he creates a new work is the right of display. The page doesn't elaborate further on that, however, so I want to make it clear that the right of display refers to the act of showing a work publicly, usually for financial gain, but not always. It actually refers to any unauthorized dislay.

In other words, if I display a photographer's work publicly and charge admission for viewing it (or not), I can be sued by the photographer if the exhibition wasn't authorized by him. Similarly, the works of any artist, filmaker, author, etc. are covered in this manner.

What this does not cover, however, is how a work of art is displayed. The "moral rights" laws, enacted in a few locales, governing this specific aspect of display does, but only in the areas in which the law has any legal jurisdiction. In other words, if I buy a sculpture and decide to paint it in garish colors, I can be sued by the artist for this, but only in places (such as California) where the law says the artist has the legal right to sue me for defacing his work, even though I own my copy of it. Conversely, if I live outside the area in which "moral rights" laws govern the display of an artist's work, I can do anything I want to with my copy of the sculpture. Not that I would, of course.

Gary

[JAZ]

My vote goes with Araich's clear explanation. I believe he is exaclty correct.
JAZ

[GaryR52]

Indeed, Araich's contribution is acurate and, in fact, lead me to revise my previous opinion on the matter, somewhat.

Gary

[Blacksun]

My understranding is that under US copyright law, any "reproduction" of a copyrighted artistic work is a violation of the artist's copyright. It is not required that it be a sculpture of a sculpture, or a painting of a painting. If you "copy" my work without my permission (a license), then we are going to have some problems. Of course, if you're a tourist, or a little kid, or a news organization, and what you are intending to do with the copy (a photograph in this case) is for your personal use or within "fair use" guidelines, or just plain amusing, then I'm more than likely going to be pleased that you noticed and not concerned. But an artist photographer that shoots my work and then attempts to profit from that "copy" he has just made of my intellectual property (as this is the kernel of copyright....it protects not only the concrete expression of an idea, but the original idea itself...), well he has violated my right to control copies made of my work, and he should not be surprised to get a cease and desist order slapped on him, along with a demand for a certified independent accounting of any proceeds from his use of the image.

Now having taken that hardline approach in this discussion, I am usually very happy to give permission for anyone to make a 2-dimensional representation of my work...and usually work out something simple and agreeable to both parties. I've only been forced to the hardline 3 times.... a company that had purchased one of my pieces for their lobby started using a photo of it as a logo in their print and internet advertising. I explained the problem and they got hard-nosed with the basic mis-conception that they "owned" the work and could do anything they wished with it.....wrong.... A quick letter from my attorney pointing out the error in their thinking and they agreed to an easy uncomplicated license agreement and were able to continue using the image. Another case was a large monumental piece, all the initial design work was finished, and the client had approved the maquette, then demanded that I sign over all rights (including copyright) to the work before they would finalize our contract...wrong.... Several weeks later, when no meeting of the minds had occurred, I took my design and went home. The monument is now under construction funded by a different group and my copyright rests safely with me.

The 3rd and last copyright run-in I had was with a client that commissioned a portrait bust, then got a little confused about her rights to the work....she insisted that it was a "work-for-hire" and as such she owned the copyright. I explained in detail with annotations that the work-for-hire provisions had no applicability to this commission. She insisted it did. Her basic problem was an attempt to control my right to reproduce the piece in the future without paying a license fee to accomplish that control. After a few weeks of emails, I again took my artwork and went home, promptly found another buyer for the sculpture at twice what I had quoted her.

And now for an example of how easy it is to work within the bounds of polite mannered conversation..... I was commissioned to create a public monument for a city park on the other side of the country. The project was very successful. A few years down the road, the piece had reached such a level of popularity with the citizens, they wanted to use a photo image of the piece in a city auto decal required on all private vehicles parked in the town.... They asked, I said sure. Cost me nothing and was a hoot seeing a parking lot full of cars and trucks with a 3" high photo copy of my sculpture on each and every windshield...

[HappySculpting]

Hi there,

I'm new to posting to this site but have been learning a lot from you all. :) Thanks! Hopefully I can add something positive to this site as well. ;)

The question that I have concerns doing a sculpture in the likeness of a painting. I love to get ideas from painting for my figures and sometimes they look just like the painting or drawing. Is this a copyright infringement?

I'm looking a getting in a gallery that sells paintings of kids/women with very large eyes. So I was thinking of sculpting some busts with large eyes to fit in to the overall theme. The large eyes style is quite unique and is originated by the painter. Am I stepping on any laws to sculpt the same style? Do I need permission of the painter? (Not that I would do so without permission just because of the moral law of being courteous since the painter is a friend of mine.)

Thanks for any imput. :o

[bluedogshuz]

Tamara,
I'm not a lawyer but my two cents are: If the other artist is relatively successful and you copy the work in 3d it would be infringement and they could take action. If however you are inspired by the large eyes and don't exactly duplicate her forms 2d or not it would not be infringement. If I copied a LLadro (sp) it would be infringement, if I did cute kids in ceramic it would not. An easier way would be to ask permission to interpret her/his work in 3d and give credit to that. Save a lot of grief. PS Saw your work and like it alot. Also got turned on to artspan and like that too. Thanks. www.patharrisart.com (http://www.patharrisart.com)

[cdub]

I would like to come to this discussion to possibly bring a different light on the subject/ see what you think. I'm not a sculpter and don't necessarily consider myself an artist, but am in the design field (landscape architecture) and many can argue its value as art. I also come as a hobby photographer and eventually a colleague and I are looking to launch a website that provides images to architects/ landscape arch./ planners in a subscription type format(much like a stock photo, but subscription and not individual licensing.) We consider what we are doing as documenting space, not trying to copy it. I could give more detail, but would hate to bore you.

We currently view any photo taken within the public realm as being 'fair game' to a certain extent. By no means do/ will we condone the blatant copying of items within our photographs that are protected by copyright, but don't consider the act of photographing a sculpture in the public domain as infringing. make a copy of a sculpture and in my opinion, that's infringing. Of course this is my opinion only. We've consulted attorneys/ the web/ stumbled on forums such as this, and all we can determine so far is it's very grey.

Hopefully I haven't lost you if you're reading this, but my point is where do you draw the line as to what is art, especially in the public domain? If sculpture/ public art is protected, why then is architecture not protected? Based on copyright law for architecture, any structure visible from public access/ right-of-way is considered in the public domain? What makes art stand out as being protected? Aren't many buildings considered works of art (think Gehry, Calatrava)? And if that's the case, where do you draw the line? Am I infringing on the BMW copyright because one of their cars were parked on a street that I was taking a photo of, regardless of whether it was the center of the composition or not when I'm trying to show what the space is like? What about Harley Davidson, now that they're motorcycles have reached icon status and even a spot at the Guggenheim, I believe? In this day and age of everything in the consumer world being 'designed' to some extent, where to draw the line is a bigger issue than just art.

Sorry if I've rambled on too long. I'm curious as to your take on these points. Look forward to hearing your responses and can give further information regarding what I'm planning if you'd like.

cdub

[GaryR52]

Welcome, Cdub. I'm in a similar field (architectural CAD technician), so I'm familiar with copyright as it applies to architecture. Basically, the plans are copyrighted, but so is the expression of the design; i.e., the completed building. Where many go wrong, though, is in assuming that any form of imagery of the building is a copyright infringement. It is not. What is protected by copyright is the rights to the design inherent in the building. In other words, if you construct a building that looks like another building, you can be sued by the architect of the building you've copied. This protection does not extend to photographs of a building, though. However, even though copyright may not extend to the photos, there are laws that govern the photographing of buildings and building owners may sue under these laws for unauthorized publication of images of their building. This is a privacy law, however, and has nothing to do with copyright. It also varies by jurisdiction and usually, there is no protection for public buildings. Coverage of commercial real estate may tend to vary, but private residences are usually subject to this law, as privacy becomes more of an issue in the case of someone's home.

As an amateur photographer, I've run into situations in which I quickly discovered my limits. I was once shooting inside a shopping mall and had no one interfere - until I stepped inside one of the shops and began shooting there. I was focusing when a burly hand grasped the lense and I was told to leave.

My advice is to get permission from the building owner. To do this, just get them to sign a model release, or in this case, I think it's called a "property release." Check with a photographers professional society, as they usually have such forms.

[cdub]

I completely understand the fact of copyright pertaining to architectural plans and we make every effort to keep in the public realm, though some public/ semi-public areas aren't clearly defined (plazas, outdoor malls). I also understand an owner's protection of a property/ building, but only if an image of that were to be used for marketing/ advertising and not by a photographer marketing/ selling images they have taken. Does that make sense?

My main questions lies in what separates art from architecture? You said that in architecture the copyright protects the plans and and the design inherent in the building. As long as someone doesn't go to another location and build that exact structure from the photographs, they aren't infringing. So why then do artists get to enjoy the protection that their art can't be duplicated in photography? It's the same as architecture, unless you build a copy of a building or a sculpture you aren't infringing.

A photograph is a 2D representation created by a photographer. Photography is also an art form that relies on other subject matter, whether it be nature, art, architecture, people, whatever, much like most sculpture/ art has something inspired it's creation.

I'm curious as to some reasons artists feel entitled to compensation from a photographer taking images of their pieces. Do most artists sell their own images of the sculptures for additional income? Or is it to protect the design from being copied thinking someone will run off and make a duplicate of a bronze sculpture from a photo?

I hope I don't come off as argumentative in any way, just trying to understand a little more from the artist's view point.

[Landseer]

The carved marble life sized reclining lions in front of the NY Public Library on 5th ave were carved and installed in 1911, they are these days protected by their being a trademark used by the library on their logo etc. The lions are a very well known recognizable entity:

"Edward Clark Potter (http://www.nypl.org/pr/potter.cfm) obtained the commission for the lions on the recommendation of August Saint-Gaudens, one of America's foremost sculptors. Potter was paid $8,000 for the modelling, and Piccirilli Brothers (http://www.nypl.org/pr/piccirilli.cfm) executed the carving for $5,000, using pink Tennessee marble.
As a tribute to the Lions' popularity and all that they stand for, the Library adopted these figures as its mascots. They are trademarked by the Library, represented in its logo, and featured at major occasions. "

[Araich]

cdub, you make an interesting point, but one that I suspect you will not find an exact answer to.
In reality most human pursuits blur at the edges and art and architecture is as good an example as any. This is part of what makes law such a confusing area.
The point that should be made is that copyright is law and that moral arguments are another thing altogether. The Act that I'm most familiar with grants an exception to buildings - that being that you can photograph, paint and even make a model of a building with impunity.
In practice I can imagine that a court might find against you, especially if logos or artworks or trademarks etc are contained in the photographs.

On the moral point, I think that you may have pointed out a failing in the law.

[Landseer]

Probably one interesting thing is I submitted a copyright application and fee etc 18 MONTHS ago, was told all was well and waited.
after a year went by I emailed and asked what was happening, they said I would receive the certificate in the mail. Wait some more, emailed and was told the same thing, here we are a year and a half and I wrote asking if it normally takes a year and half just to rubber stamp an application and send out a certificate which is nothing more than a copy of the application basically. I received this:

"No it does not normally take this long to process a registration. In fact your workwas cleared for registration in June 2005 and a certificate should have been issued by now. We will once again forrward this information to the appropriate section with the notation that this is your second inquiry and a reply should be expedited. sw
**********************************
Copyright Office
Library of Congress"
======

Actually this was my 4th inquiry.
Interestingly enough trademarks etc are said to take 2-3 YEARS to process and I think the fee is $250 or something like that. Also the policy is that once you send your fee for copyright in, if they don't approve the application for any reason- they get to KEEP the money, nice huh?
Pretty typical Govt bureaucracy.

[cdub]

Araich, I'm trying to get a feel for where you stand on the copyright issue. After hearing my points, are you thinking public art should be free from copyright issues as long as they are in the public realm and free from trademark issues? This is how I view the issues with architecture and curious as to your take.

There have been some decisions in the court regarding trademark, most specifically the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. If I'm not mistaken, the photographer was not in the wrong for taking and selling pictures of the building. The court ruled that every angle of the building could not be trademarked and if they wanted to protect their trademark, they needed to select a few shots and have those specifically trademarked. I think the issue was the HofF was selling similar images in their gift shop and felt this photographer was taking away from their income. I'll see if I can find a link to this and post in the future.

Should this same scenario apply to art or do people still consider that a photograph is an exact duplicate of a sculpture/ art piece and therefore a copyright infringement?

[sculptor]

Please see this link:

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wci

highlights:
Copyright Secured Automatically upon Creation
The way in which copyright protection is secured is frequently misunderstood. No publication or registration or other action in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright. (See following Note.) There are, however, certain definite advantages to registration. See "Copyright Registration."

Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created, and a work is "created" when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time. "Copies" are material objects from which a work can be read or visually perceived either directly or with the aid of a machine or device, such as books, manuscripts, sheet music, film, videotape, or microfilm. "Phonorecords" are material objects embodying fixations of sounds (excluding, by statutory definition, motion picture soundtracks), such as cassette tapes, CDs, or LPs. Thus, for example, a song (the "work") can be fixed in sheet music (" copies") or in phonograph disks (" phonorecords"), or both.

If a work is prepared over a period of time, the part of the work that is fixed on a particular date constitutes the created work as of that date.
..............................
and:

HOW LONG COPYRIGHT PROTECTION ENDURES
Works Originally Created on or after January 1, 1978
A work that is created (fixed in tangible form for the first time) on or after January 1, 1978, is automatically protected from the moment of its creation and is ordinarily given a term enduring for the author's life plus an additional 70 years after the author's death. In the case of "a joint work prepared by two or more authors who did not work for hire," the term lasts for 70 years after the last surviving author's death. For works made for hire, and for anonymous and pseudonymous works (unless the author's identity is revealed in Copyright Office records), the duration of copyright will be 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter.

..............
and:
NOTICE OF COPYRIGHT
is no longer required under U.S. law

etcetc
you really should read the entire site yourselves

hope this helps
sculptor (http://sculpture.alturl.com)

[Landseer]

and:
NOTICE OF COPYRIGHT
is no longer required under U.S. law
etcetc
you really should read the entire site yourselves

I have read the site long ago, my issue is my reproductions are self modified anonymous works, and I have had a couple of idiots selling knockoffs of two of my pieces on Ebay, so while automatic copyright sounds nice, when it comes down to the wire places like Ebay and courts require PROOF of infringement to do anything.

One seller on Ebay had my lion block bookend, I showed him this was in my 1986 catalogue and said if he didn't immediately cease selling these
I would have my attorney shut him down. He first claimed he buys and resells and that I needed to contact his "supplier"- he sold a pair of them sprayed with gold paint, for less than $2 on Ebay!!!
and I said, do you think I fell off the turnip truck yesterday? you buy these from someone else and resell the one pair I saw, with no reserve on Ebay for $2?
Then he changed his story to oh yes, he DOES produce them himself after all.
My pair in hydrocal weighs 28 pounds, there's no way anyone could make, sell wholesale, and someone else sell them for $2

Lucky for me he backed down and discontinued selling them, but here I am 18 months later and I STILL don't have an official certificate YET should this come up again.

[cdub]

I guess a lot of this talk brings me back to my initial question - what gives art in the public domain special protection from infringement than architecture?

I'm not arguing that architecture be restricted, rather advocating that if art is in the public domain and photographed than that photographer should be able to sell his/ her image. I don't think the photographs should be used for advertising purposes to market a certain brand without permission from the artist, but simply selling fine art photographs should be fine.

In the website a partner and I are developing, we are taking photos of the built environment and distributing them to architects/landscape architects/planners to provide tools to promote good design. In our profession, our clients many times can't visualize an aspect of a development and we feel there is the need for photographs for that specific purpose.

Currently we have +/- 8000 photos and growing from our personal travels. Of that, we have roughly 300 or so photos of public art in the public domain. Does that mean I have to go and get permission from 300 artists to show their work, when (just like architecture) it is viewable from public right of way?

Here are a couple of interesting links to a couple of articles we've found. Mostly make the gray grayer, but give valid points for each side.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0330/p15s01-usju.html

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HMU/is_2_28/ai_75562384

[Landseer]

From another thread:

Clearly this is an important issue, but I would add that from my experience (I have licensed reproduction rights before) this contract is not really all that binding. Copyright law is very specific and a license must meet certain criteria before it becomes binding. For example, your signature.

I would be interested if anyone can cite a case where clicking a few website buttons has produced a binding copyright license.I wonder too, because when you sign up on a web forum there is no realistic way to verify your name, address or other information you provide, thus, anyone can register as anyone else, post their stolen photos and other material and then leave.
It could get sticky legally speaking, and then too how would the REAL image owner prove THEY were not the one who posted them there?

There is such a thing as an electronic signature, but there again- there is no verification of identity, no credit card validation for example to prove who is "signing"

[JMasts]

I have been reading this with interest. Complicated laws, indeed!

I have a slight twist on this question regarding "who holds the copyright"? Here is the hypo:

Artist creates a non-commissioned one-of-a-kind piece - basically, it is a blank figure intended for customized paint jobs, and the artist has hand painted it using one of his distinctive characters and designs the "Piece"). Artist then sells the Piece to consumer. Straight sale for cash (with no contract or statements about ownership or copyright - copyright issue probably wasn't even considered by artist or consumer).

Subsequently, artist becomes well known and major publisher publishes a full color coffee-table sized book on these types of figures, and includes a picture of the Piece. The picture was taken by the artist himself before the sale of the Piece to consumer. The book, obviously, is being sold (i.e., was created for commercial purposes).

Questions:

Who holds the copyright in the picture of the Piece in the book?
Does the artist hold it?
Or does the new owner of the Piece now own it?

Would the law require the book publisher to get permission from the consumer (who now owns the piece) to publish the picture in its book for sale?
Or did they just need the artist's permission?
Did they need ANYONE's permission?

Does the consumer have any copyright interest in images that are published for commercial purposes of the the Piece regardless of who took the pictures? I.e., can the consumer object to publication without consumer's permission?

Thanks for any input you can provide (even if it is just based on your Holiday Inn experiences ;) ).

[Araich]

Artist makes work independently = Artist automatically owns copyright over artwork.

Artists sells work (without contract specifying transfer of copyright) = Artist continues to own copyright.

Photographer photographs artwork = Photographer owns copyright over photograph, limited commercially by Artists copyright over artwork.

Commercial use of either the photograph or the artwork depicted by the photograph are both prohibited except where license is granted by the Artist.

[JMasts]

Artist makes work independently = Artist automatically owns copyright over artwork.

Artists sells work (without contract specifying transfer of copyright) = Artist continues to own copyright.

Photographer photographs artwork = Photographer owns copyright over photograph, limited commercially by Artists copyright over artwork.

Commercial use of either the photograph or the artwork depicted by the photograph are both prohibited except where license is granted by the Artist.

Thanks, that all makes sense and follows my understanding. One more issue, though: does the consumer, the person who bought the work, have any rights (copyright, or otherwise)?

[Araich]

They own the physical work only.

However, even this is limited in many countries. For instance, in many cases the artwork cannot legally be altered in any way, or destroyed. There may even be limits over the way the work is displayed, in that it not bring the artist into disrepute. These are often know as Moral Rights and are also the property of the artist.

All of these laws, including copyright, have a simple function; to encourage the creation of artwork. They do this by protecting artists and their creations from exploitation and damage.

[JMasts]

Thanks again! Very helpful! Seems like a good system.

[Blacksun]

Araich,

Excellent explanation! :cool:

[Julianna]

Thanks, that all makes sense and follows my understanding. One more issue, though: does the consumer, the person who bought the work, have any rights (copyright, or otherwise)?

Additionally, copyrights can be sold in whole or part as part of the transaction...although it doens't happen often. For example, if an outdoor sculpture is purchased by a company who intends to photograph its building with the sculpture outside and use the photograph in promotional material, it would be wise for them to work out the copyrights to the sculpture's image at the time of the aquisition. The extent of the copyrights would be a factor in the final price paid to the artist. If this does not happen, the artist has the right to collect copyright royalties from the company because the company only owns the physical sculpture---the artist still owns the right to the image.

There are also moral rights, which I think can never be sold or waived by the artist. These cover the integrity of the work, and protect the work from being changed without the artist's permission. This usually gets ugly when the artwork is well integrated into a building or site and the owners want to remove or modify it. I'm having some difficulty finding it, but there was a thread discussing a situation like that several months ago.

[SPRINGFIELD]

I find this discussion on copyright law very interesting. I would sure like to here from a practicing attorney about this subject. I'm mostly familiar with patent law having delt with that can of worms on many occasions. The short of it is that like patent law I suspect that the copyright laws arn't all that protective of the small individual artist. Does the government go after the copyright infringers or is that left up to the artist who was ripped off? It would be nice to here from practricing copyright attorneys or artists who have actually been successful in obtaining a judgement against a copyright infringer.

[Araich]

Yep, the real world is another thing to written law.

I once had a developer commission me to make a sculpture for their foyer, without asking they took an image off my website and used it in a 6 foot high billboard outside their development, on a major city road. The problem with this is two-fold. First the image they used to promote their development was copyright, and it's commercial use should have been approved. Second, the image in question was a work commissioned by a previous client!

Here's the rub; would you threaten the foyer commission and damage the relationship with the developer over this? No, of course not.

So they get free commercial use of one of my copyright images, in an uncontrolled way (it was a low res image and looked crap, plus they stuck text all over it and the colour reproduction was way off). AND it had the potential to upset a previous client.

What are you going to do?

[obseq]

One suggestion for online documentation is to disable right-clicking.
This prevents anyone from manually saving an image from your website.

Araich, how did you end up resolving the problem with the developer?
Did you let it slide, or did something come of it?

[SPRINGFIELD]

Thanks for sharing your experence. It seems like a great example of what I was worried about. I can only try and imagine how frustrating that must be.

[MountainSong]

In Hawaii is an artist who was commissioned to make several artistic signs for a town with the town’s name on them along with a surfer and some flowers. The artist retained the copywrite and would not sell it to the town chamber. The sign has become rather famous and is in guide books all over the world.

10-15 years ago a photographer photographed the sign and silk screened it onto t-shirts for sell, the sign painter sued him and won a very substantial amount of money.
Some years later an artist painted a picture of the sign, sold the original painting and went to print on it and was successfully sued by the sign painter.

Then last year when the sign had been vandalized and was deteriorating a deaf Japanese guy with strong, fond memories of the sign and associations with it, came to Hawaii on his own dime, replaced the missing and stolen parts and freshly painted the whole sign front and back. He didn't speak English and when the press came to photograph him all he could say was "I Love Hawaii!!!"
On the back he signed and dated when he’d done the restoration – now the artist is trying to track him down to sue him too!

I’d show you a picture of the sign but don't want to get sued also.

Moral of the story is if you made it and someone is making money off your creation and your not getting any of it you probably have a strong case. (and if someone is restoring it - be gracious and thank them.)

[Araich]

One suggestion for online documentation is to disable right-clicking.
This prevents anyone from manually saving an image from your website.

Araich, how did you end up resolving the problem with the developer?
Did you let it slide, or did something come of it?

Select and Ctrl+C will copy it.

I decided some time ago not to worry to much about minor infringements. To do otherwise would send me nuts anyway. In the case I mention above, I just let it slide.

That sign post story is hilarious.

[Julianna]

One suggestion for online documentation is to disable right-clicking.
This prevents anyone from manually saving an image from your website.


Unfortunately, people can get around this by simply taking a screenshot of what they see on their computer. They can also go into their browser's cache to grab the image or view the page's source to get the path of the image.

So far, the best suggestion I've heard for preventing people from stealing your images is to not put them online. The runner-up suggestion is to put a copyright statement (e.g. (c) Your Name, 2006) or website logo on the image (and in a place where cropping or bluring the statement/logo would ruin the integrity of the work).